Flexibility in Religiosity

Religious systems are flexible. Membership isn’t restricted to one faith.

It’s only in the West that singular devotion to one religious pathway is the norm, so much so that westerners struggle with the concept of people belonging to multiple religions. This view is, ultimately, unhelpful and unrepresentative of the wider truth.

Many people who follow Paganism, Shintoism, Dharmic faiths (Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism) or Chinese faiths (Confucianism and Daoism) equally follow another religion without issue.

Most people who follow one Chinese faith also follow the other as well as Buddhism. All the Dharmic faiths blur into each other. Indeed, Hinduism sees the Buddha as an avatar of Vishnu, the most popular god in India.

Further, in areas where indigenous, native religions still hold fast (from Africa to Asia and the Americas), additional identification with a global religion is very common. They blend the faiths together and take what feels right from each.

In the West, people find this confusing. What if there are contradictions in the different religions’ teachings?

Here it’s important to remember that what religious leaders teach isn’t unanimously accepted by all believers. Compare this to a political party: members identify with the one that fits most with their own views.

People make up their own minds on what to believe. Official opinions between different religions often contradict but this doesn’t mean believers think either opinion is true, let alone both. And if they do, the believer will find a compromise that suits their needs.

The point of every religion is to live a good life so pick the best one(s) for you. Taking bits and pieces from one religion doesn’t mean you aren’t staying true to another. It’s like nutrients: you get them from eating your main meals but you can supplement that with vitamins to make you healthier and feel good.

Referenda Infinitum (Brexit)

Democracy is about listening to the people and not ignoring their wishes. Democracy is about fulfilling the wishes of the public.

This is achieved by providing people with choices in elections and referenda. In this manner, the more often people are listened to, the more choices they are given, the more democratic their society. Thus countries are more democratic if they provide more choices.

Subsequent choices don’t ignore what people said before.

Instead, follow-up choices are a way to hear what people say now, to hear further contributions from the public. People have a habit of changing their minds so they should be able to express this with new choices.

If the public change their mind on something, it is democratic to follow through on it.

Without doubt, the talk of a second Brexit referendum is the best example.

More people wanted to leave the EU than stay so it is only right that we start to leave. But if more people now want to stay in the EU then that should happen, then it is only right that we stop Brexit.

It is democratic to fulfil the wishes of the public, wishes dictated by people who can change their minds.

This doesn’t lead to referendum after referendum on the issue.

If a second one favours leaving the EU then that is the end of the matter. If after people know what leaving the EU entails and they still vote to do so, it is only democratic to follow through and proceed with Brexit.

Remainers would have the right to complain but they wouldn’t have the right to demand a third Brexit referendum. Instead, they could only demand a referendum on re-joining the EU.

I say all this as a Remainer, as someone who sees leaving the EU as a massive mistake. But my belief in democracy is more important than my political affiliations.

Besides, Brexit was fought for certain reasons: if those reasons can’t be achieved, the UK shouldn’t leave the EU (see the link below for an article on this). Brexit was for full sovereignty and, with the delicate Irish border, it seems farfetched that we can escape the Court of European Justice. If so, there’s no point in continuing with Brexit.

Critique: The Tethered Mage (Melissa Caruso)

This story follows Lady Amalia, booklover and daughter of La Contessa Lissandra Cornaro (‘The Countess Lissandra Cornaro’) when she becomes a Falconer to Zaira, her Falcon (a mage). It takes place in two locations: Raverra, capital of the Serene Empire, and Ardence, where Amalia’s university friends live.

Background

There are four kinds of mages: alchemists, artificers, vivomancers (manipulate plants and animals) and warlocks (the elements, so fire and storms). Mages can be identified by the ring they have around their pupil. Zaira is a fire warlock.

Lissandra sits on one of the four de facto hereditary seats on the Council of Nine which rules the Serene Empire from Raverra. Lady Amalia living up to her Cornaro name and testing her capabilities to be in charge of the empire are recurring themes which are undercurrents to the main story.

The Council of Nine is led by the Doge of the Serene Empire. (‘Doge’ is equivalent to ‘Duke’ and empires are ruled by emperors, not dukes, so I don’t know how that came about.)

Usually Falconers have to live with their Falcons in their compound. Due to La Contessa Lissandra Cornaro’s elevated position, she gets her daughter out of that arrangement and instead uses the situation as an opportunity to test out her daughter’s tactical capabilities.

Falcons are used for the Serene Empire. Zaira hates that she no longer has control over her magic and movements (her bitterness is very prevalent). Most Falcons are a bit more laid back: Istrelle (an artificer) is happy as a Falcon, although this is because her Falcon (Lieutenant Verdi) is also her brother.

***SPOILERS***

Story

After buying a book, Amalia sees a girl (Zaira) being accosted by a man. Amalia tries to interfere but Zaira uses her fire magic to get away. Lieutenant Verdi (who’s been tracking Zaira) asks Lady Amalia to tether Zaira which stops her magic.

A Falconer tethers a mage with magical jesses (making said mage a Falcon) and uses words allow and stop their Falcon from using their magic. So as Zaira didn’t have permission to use her magic, Amalia putting jesses on the mage stopped the magic. This also meant Amalia became a Falconer.

            After Lady Amalia is acquainted with Falconer life, the Doge sends her and Zaira to Ardence. The heirs to all the important families have gone missing and the Ardence’s Duke blames the Falconers. (Yes, the same empire has both duke and doge which mean different things despite being part of the same Italian-based culture.)

Amalia, being both Falcon and heir to the Council of Nine, is thus the perfect person to represent the Doge’s interests: convince Ardence not to secede from the Serene Empire with politics and, if failing that, with Zaira’s fire.

            The Duke is hosting Prince Ruven, son of one of the thirteen Witchlords of Vaskander (the country north of the Serene Empire). Amalia discovers Ruven persuaded the Duke into secession to distract the empire, making it easier for Vaskander to invade. With the help of Zaira and Verdi, Amalia seeks to solve the situation.

Mistakes

This idea of bonding mages with someone else and, the mechanics of this system, is interesting. There were a few inconsistencies that weren’t addressed, however.

The Falcon-Falconer bond is lifelong and this causes contention throughout the book because no one can think of a way to get Amalia out of it. (Except, that is, for these same characters explaining one Falconer retiring so their Falcon gets a new Falconer. The book seems to glance over that, though. No one thought to transfer Zaira to another Falcon?)

            A mage only becomes a Falcon once someone puts on jesses and then that someone becomes a Falconer. Yet when Istrella and Verdi joined the Falcons, Istrella grew up wearing her jesses yet Verdi had to wait four years to become her Falcon.

There were two outright grammatical mistakes that were really obvious. I hope they were unintentional but if they were conscious decisions on part of the author or editor then I despair.

            The first: ‘Half Ruven’s servants’. Where is the ‘of’ between the first two words? If it was all the servants, would ‘All Ruven’s servants’ have been written?

            The second: ‘So it was two days after the Council of Lords meeting, we prepared to leave.’ That comma has no business being there. It is purposeless. It’s neither separating items on a list nor separating clauses from one another. The comma should have been remove and perhaps replaced with ‘that’.

Verdict

The politics of this novel were well thought out and thoroughly enjoyable. That alone makes this story worth a read. Plus the Falcon-Falconer relationship is fascinating, if a little flawed here and there to suit the story as and when needed. Zaira, whilst annoyingly (if not understandably) bitter, came up with the best lies and was rather humorous. My favourite character was Ciardha, La Contessa Lissandra Cornaro’ maid. You’ll have to read it to discover Ciardha’s brilliance.

Hungarian PM Orban deserves the Nobel Prize?

According to Dutch populist Geert Wilders, Orban does.

This comes after the EU Parliament voted for punitive measures against Hungary because its government has breached academic freedom, equality, judicial independence, human dignity (especially of minorities/refugees), the rule of law etc.

Now, the Nobel Prize is given for achievements and advancements in six categories: Chemistry; Economics; Literature; Peace; Physics; and Physiology/Medicine. From what Orban has done, I fail to see how the PM qualifies for any of these Nobel Prizes.

Worse, Wilders has failed to elaborate, his only justification seeming to be that he supports Orban’s anti-immigration measures. Anti-immigration policies don’t add progress to any of these categories.

Indeed, anti-immigration policies do the opposite, detracting from Peace: they build unnecessary tensions within society and promote discrimination based on what someone is rather than what they do. Immigrants are often seeking peace, so to win the Peace Prize on immigration, surely one would have to gladly accommodate immigrants?

Singular Pronouns You and They, previously plural pronouns

‘You’ was once just a plural pronoun with its singular version being ‘thou’. Nowadays, ‘you’ can be (and mostly is) used as both a plural and a singular pronoun. No one denies this. Hence there is nothing grammatically wrong with pronouns shifting. (Any linguist knows pronouns are the shiftiest of word types.)

‘They’ is officially a plural pronoun but it has been used as a singular pronoun at least since Shakespeare’s time. If you deny that ‘they’ can be singular pronoun then you forfeit the right to use ‘you’ as a singular pronoun, too. Do you use ‘thou’? No you do not.

There is no reason why ‘you’ is allowed to be singular but ‘they’ is not. If your reasoning leads to two different conclusions then it is senseless and illogical.

So yes, from a purely grammatical point of view, ‘they’ is a singular pronoun.

Why Banning the Burka is Ridiculous

To the wearer of a burka, it carries spiritual significance. For non-Muslims, the burka is just a bit of cloth. So why not let them wear it? Seeing as burka-wearing Muslims are a minority, I don’t understand why it’s become such a big issue in the Western world.

People often want to ban burkas because they claim it’s a form of oppression, that Muslim women are forced to wear them. Yet this is illogical because you’re telling them not to wear it: you’re removing their autonomy over their own body and that too is oppression.

Sure, some women are forced to where the burka. The choice has been removed from them. How does this justify removing the choice from other women?

Then security reasons are cited for banning the burka which seems pointless. Most suicide bombers are male. Should we ban their clothing too? No. Besides, if a man is indoctrinated into extremism and terrorism, it’s a guarantee that they’d take on all of the more conservative views. An extremist wouldn’t ever be seen in a burka.

It also shocks me when people think the burka should be banned but guns shouldn’t. It’s pretty obvious which one of the two is more prone to being a security risk.

(For more on banning of Muslim attire, see my post about the burkini ban: http://onagentlebreeze.blogspot.com/2016/08/burkini-ban-and-secularism.html )